User talk:Blue Rook/Archive 10
Vandal Good job handling the mass vandalism attack. Wish I'd been here to help you out. Just a quick question: I only put in about 10 seconds of thought as to why you moved a few pages around. I can't figure that out. Please explain your rationale behind this. --Deege515 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC) : Most of the vandal's attacks were page moves from "article title" to "article title PELICAN SH*T!!!", so all those moves you saw that I did were from the new vandal-titled pages back to the old, which means I had to delete the old (since he changed them to redirects) so I could move the original material (including the page histories) back. I then deleted the vandal-titled pages, which had no histories beyond his creation of them. Take a look at his/her edit history, you can see the titles of the new pages the vandal moved to. : I can understand why this would be confusing to someone just looking at the recent changes; if you still don't catch what happened, or have a better way to undo page moves, plop it here. – Blue Rook 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)talk Maya11 I noticed that you blocked Maya a few days back although she hasn't (detrimentally) contributed anything for nearly a year. All right, acceptable, I suppose. I guess no statutes of limitations exists with you, heh. --Deege515 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC) : The last straw was naming a character after herself; that's where somebody has to draw the line. As for statutes of limitations... it's a wiki, not the supreme court :P She trolled long and hard, fabricated character names from whole cloth, sock puppet-ed extensively, threatened the wiki once, and then left it all for people who actually care to sort out. Isn't that far more insidious than the run-of-the-mill, infantile vandalism, yes? – Blue Rook 04:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)talk Formatting disambiguation pages I'm not sure the headings are really necessary for most of the disambiguation pages. For a page that only has one or two things under each heading, it only serves to make the page longer and, in my opinion, unnecessarily unappealing to read. Perhaps for some of the pages with a ton of items, it might be advantageous to put headings in, but for the most part I don't see any point to it. --Proudhug 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC) : Arrighty, I'll just skim through from time to time for the larger ones and quit messing with the small ones. As for the small ones I have already changed, what do you say we leave them as such, since they can only get larger over time? – Blue Rook 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)talk The disambiguation pages are part of one of my current projects in progress, so I'm trying to come up with a somewhat nice-looking and consistent format. I haven't completely figured out how I'm going to do it all yet, but other than making suggestions, I'd prefer people stick to merely adding to the pages, rather than reordering or reformatting them, for the time being. --Proudhug 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) User profiles Thanks for doing all that. I've never felt comfortable imposing upon the sanctity of other people's profiles, but I guess if we make everyone's empty profiles like that, then it shouldn't be an issue. --Deege515 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC) : I'm glad that you approve; if any one of them has any problems, they can always blank that note off their page. Btw, should I have replied on your talk page on this topic, or was posting here good? – Blue Rook 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)talk :: I prefer talk pages to be more in a forum style so that other readers can read the flow of a conversation all on same page, rather than having to bounce back and forth between each talk page, like it's an e-mail conversation. This is especially necessary, since other users are welcome to chime into the conversation, and the logistics of making a 3+-way conversation across multiple talk pages would make navigating the original subject a tad hellish. --Deege515 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC) :: On second thought, something else has come to mind. The reasoning behind a link being red is so you know that there's going to be nothing there when you click on the link. Users will be disappointed to find out that a user's page has nothing but a "there's nothing here" disclaimer. They can't really get any redemption out of it either, unless they write a stalkerish life story about that particular user. --Deege515 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC) : Okay, I got the first part... the last bit, though I wasn't too clear on? I don't think other users would write in the userpage with the stub notice just to get rid of the notice (only the user himself would wind up doing that, which is a good thing). If you were being sarcastic, yes I agree, they wouldn't be stalkers. But, concerning the first part, I consider the inconvenience of finding a userpage with just a stub on it to be overall an unfortunate but necessary tradeoff/by-product of clearing out the Wanted Pages from clutter (which was my only goal... if the wanted pages didn't have userpages in them, I would never have bothered with—or been able to even do—this). Do you feel the tradeoff is worse, overall? – Blue Rook 12:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)talk Welcome to the ranks! Due to your diligent efforts in fully exposing and squashing the work of the Maya11 troll in all her incarnations, as well as your persistent attention to the details of the 24''verse, I'm hereby appointing you our newest administrator! With nearly a thousand edits to '''Wiki 24' in less than two months, and every one being a delightful addition to the site, you've quickly and aptly learned our policies and procedures as well as anyone could, and proven yourself an exceptional asset to the site. Your constant presence here will make you an invaluable community leader, I'm sure. We're delighted to have you on board, Blue Rook! --Proudhug 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC) : Good work, Blue Rook. I was actually going to get around to recommending you, myself. --Deege515 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC) :: I've been speechless for the better part of the last hour. No really, a bee stung my tongue and I've been muted and drooling all over my keyboard ;D I genuinely appreciate the votes of confidence these past few weeks, and all your work with the awesome little community here. It has been a great pleasure contributing here, and it will be a fantastic experience for me to help maintain this place with all of you. This promotion adumbrates how I will pretty much be spending the rest of this summer... and goddamn, what a good summer it will be! – Blue Rook 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)talk Blakeney You asked for Blakeney... he was the press secretary aboard Air Force One on Day 4. Day 4 10:00pm-11:00pm.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:BauerJ24, on 09:52, 5 June 2007 : I dropped one on your talk page. If you ever get the time in an episode where he (or she, as the original page creator claims) is identified, I will be the first one to resurrect that page (admins can work with deleted crap). Let me know of any source that you happen to find, otherwise, I'll be happy to let this ghost from Maya11 haunt only the realm of the unseen.– Blue Rook 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)talk Zhou Zhou last name might be Yong after all. I have uploaded a clip from the show and you can decide for yourself. Here is the address: http://www.angelfire.com/planet/gatty790/zhou.mp3 -Gatty790 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC) : Nice catch man, I put your find and the link over at the Zhou talk page... I'm trying to confirm this with Mongol at wikipedia, if I get an answer, I will post it at the Zhou talk page and then we get a consensus after all. Thanks for your work in tracking this down and trying to figure it out! – Blue Rook 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)talk :: No problem, I enjoy a little 24 treasure hunt now and then. - Gatty790 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Pic names Please review the Image use policy. It's a good idea to give images clear names when uploading them. --Proudhug 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) : Ah yeah my bad. The only reason I didn't rename those three was because I plan to use them on my userpage, and didn't think anyone would want them anywhere on the main space. While we're on the topic, is there any policy or unspoken rules about user sub pages? I have a small project that would look terrible integrated into my main userpage, and figured I could just link to its own sub page instead. Go/no go? – Blue Rook 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)talk It's your userpage, so I say knock yourself out. Presumably it's at least marginally about 24, right? Even if it's not, unless you begin using Wiki 24 as a dumping ground for random text and images I personally don't have a problem with subpages. I figure the more our editors want to share with us, especially their own projects, the closer we become as a community! :D --Proudhug 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC) : Ah excellent! Yes for the record it is quite 24-related. It won't be up for a few days because I'm powering through finals week right now (actually more like slogging through... slogging while suffering from a severe migraine, acute polonium-210 radiation poisoning, and a gunshot wound to the abdomen). But when it's up, I hope everyone enjoys it. – Blue Rook 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)talk :: Okay, it's finally finished. I just wish I could get the names of the actors who played the two conspirator extras... – Blue Rook 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)talk Adam and Jason These guys need separate articles, even though they're not distinguishable. We had someone do the same thing with Safa and Naji once. --Proudhug 00:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC) : Alrighty, but how should I distinguish between them? They are not credited (background notes), unlike Safa and Naji. Do you know which one is which? I was tempted to say that the guy with the shotgun was Adam, and the guy with the fuller hair and silenced pistol was Jason, but that would be arbitrary decision on my part. – Blue Rook 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)talk There's no need to distinguish. Just put the same picture up for both and leave a background note stating that it's unknown which is which character. I remember seeing an example of this on Memory Alpha once, but I can't find it now. --Proudhug 00:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) : On it like scales on a snake. So, if I reasoned inductively from this and said that it is this website's policy to always give named characters their own individual pages, would I be right? – Blue Rook 01:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)talk List pages are the only ones about more than one person. We try to create a page for every individually named person, place and thing from the show, regardless of whether or not there's any unique information. Here's the deleted discussion from the "Safa and Naji" page: :: Don't these two each deserve their own page? This is the only page like this that I've seen on the site. Every other character, no matter how minor, gets their own page. I understand that both of them do the same thing and essentially have the same role, but it seems very odd to me that we only have one page like this on the site. If no one has any objections I'd like to change this into two different pages. I'll change the links on the corresponding pages as well. - Xtreme680 ::: I agree 100%. --Proudhug 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) :: Ha, you're right. This was either the first or one of the first pages I made, and I was going to do separate pages, but for some reason decided not to. I wasn't familiar enough with Wiki24 to know any better, and I have never gone back to fix it. But I agree, they should each have their own page... --Kapoli 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) No one's brought up any arguments for combined character pages before, so as of now, this sounds like a good policy to me. The only other closest thing we've had was the unnamed conspirators page, but that was changed, too. --Proudhug 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Image categories Yeah, I'm still working through them, rather sporadically I guess. Basically right now I'm just going through the character page of all the characters and adding the image category to all the images on that page. I know there are a lot more images than that, but at least that's a start. There are still a lot of images in so that may be where I go after this. If you know of anything else needs to be done in the categorizing area (or any area I guess), feel free to let me know.--Jonpro 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Welcome!, Part 2 First off, let me just say that you're doing some superb work here on the site. You've only been here a short while, but have already proven yourself an invaluable asset, easily on your way to Admin status, if you so desire. I'm looking forward to seeing you stick around for a long while and finding out what else you'll be contributing. Wiki 24 has forged through some rough times and I sometimes wish I'd missed that phase, too, but it's a necessary evil and the result is a beautifully polished site that seems to be doing its job in attracting skilled editors such as yourself. I greatly enjoyed reading your Villains @ Large ranking system. It's reassuring to see that I'm not the only one who pays strict attention to minutiae such as this. ... And I only remember Morrison because I just rewatched those episodes recently, though I do remember Television Without Pity having fun with Keith Szarabajka's name. --Proudhug 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC) : Very nice! Your note was like a dose of adren. I'm generally not a fast-track-to-success type of guy, but hey, this works. And since I'm neither a terribly good actor, nor one for strategic equivocation or verbal (or typed, for that matter) legerdemain, I'll answer with an emphatic "yes" to the prospect of increased responsibility here. Thank you, for this encouraging post Proudhug! – Blue Rook 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)talk Robert Morrison Damn, you're right. I have no idea who the hell Robert Morrison was; and even after reading the article, I still don't remember who he was. --Deege515 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC) : Aha! You see, that is the sign of a good villain at work. You don't remember him because he was like a snake riding a bolt of greased lightning. A fireproof snake, of course... and a nearly invincible one, at that. Well, okay bad analogy. But he was a tricky bastage. He skipped an episode too, just to throw us off... – Blue Rook 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)talk Tracking the Override Thanks for the summary of the Dobson Override, but why not incorporate that section into the article itself? --Proudhug 16:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC) : Sure man no problem. By incorporate, do you mean make a paragraph out of it? I had considered doing that, but wound up with the bullet points because I figured it would be easier to peruse for the eye. Also I tend not to write about objects like I do for people so it's partially my own bias, not just aesthetic reasoning I confess. You're the man in charge, though, so would you prefer that I should format that into a paragraph? — Blue Rook 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Yeah, that's what I meant, one or more paragraphs. Ultimately, the "completed" main section of the article would already include all of the bulleted information, so your section would become redundant eventually anyway. And ego aside, As admin, I may be one of several in charge of the operation of the site and enforcement of our rules, but technically, we're all in charge of how things look and run at Wiki 24. Anytime you feel something should be changed, added, or omitted, you're always free to discuss it in The Situation Room or on the appropriate Talk page. I may be a community leader here, but it is still a community and everyone has a say. I only clarify this because there have been issues in the past. Happy editing! :) --Proudhug 17:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)